Korean Journal of Environmental Agriculture (한국환경농학회지)

The Korean Society of Environmental Agriculture (한국환경농학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Reduced Nitrogen Fertigation Rates on Growth and Yield of Tomato

질소 관비량 절감이 토마토 생육 및 수량에 미치는 효과

  • Lee, In-Bog (Dept. of Horticultural Environment, National Horticultural Research Institute, RDA) ;
  • Lim, Jae-Hyun (Dept. of Horticultural Environment, National Horticultural Research Institute, RDA) ;
  • Park, Jin-Myeon (Dept. of Horticultural Environment, National Horticultural Research Institute, RDA)
  • Published : 2007.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

To investigate the effect of N fertigation on the growth, yield, and water and nitrogen use efficiencies during tomato cultivation, seedlings were transplanted in a sandy loam soil under plastic film house condition. 0, 88, 132, 176, $220\;kg\;ha^{-1}$ N rates, which correspond to 0 (NF0), 40 (NF40), 60 (NF60), 80 (NF80), 100% (NF100) N level of soil test-based N fertilization, were injected weekly through drip irrigation system for 15 weeks in N fertigation system, and the control (conventional N treatment) was installed for comparison. Herein, nitrogen was applied by top-dressing with 60% as a basal and 40% as additional fertilizer. There was little different in stem diameter growth among N fertigation treatments, but plant height and dry matter increased with increasing N fertigation rates as well as in N conventional treatment. Tomato yield was increased with increasing the number of marketable fruits in N fertigation treatments, and the fruit yield was maximized in NF 80 treatment ($176\;kg\;ha^{-1}$ N supply or $96.6\;mg\;L^{-1}$ N injection). Dry matter productivity and nitrogen uptake amount were significantly increased with increasing N fertigation rates. The ratio of fruits to the dry weight of whole plant was decreased with increasing N fertigation rates, but this ratio was $2.6{\sim}5.3%$ higher in N fertigation treatments than in the control. In addition, the ratios of nitrogen distributed toward fruits in N fertigation treatments were $3.7{\sim}21.7%$ higher than that of control. The apparent N recovery percentages showed significantly higher values as $71.8{\sim}102.3%$ in N fertigation treatments, compared to 45% in N conventional treatment. Water use efficiency was significantly increased by fertigation system with the maximum $361\;kg/ha\;cm^{-1}$ in NF 80, which is comparable to $324\;kg/ha\;cm^{-1}$ of the conventional treatment. Conclusively, N fertigation system was effective on increasing tomato productivity and nutrient efficiency as well as 20% reduction of N fertilization level.

토마토의 생육, 수량, 물과 질소 이용율 등에 미치는 질소 관비 처리효과를 살펴보기 위하여 토양검정시비량의 0%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%에 해당하는 질소량은 15회에 걸쳐 토마토에 점적관비 하였으며, 질소 점적관비 효과는 질소관행시비구(기비와 추비를 60:40의 비율로 표층시비)와 비교하였다. 질소관비량 증가로 토마토의 초장과 건물중은 증가하였으나, 경경은 현저한 차이가 없었다. 질소관비량 증가에 따른 상품과실수 증가로 토마토수량은 증가하였다. 질소관비처리구의 과실수량은 질소관비처리량에 따라 $9{\sim}33%$ 가량 증가하였으며, 토양검정시비량의80%(NF80처리구)에 해당하는 $176kg\;ha^{-1}$의 질소 관비시(96.6 mg $L^{-1}$) 과실은 최대수량을 보였다. 질소관비량 증가로 토마토 부위별 건물중과 질소흡수량은 증가하였다. 전체건물중 대비 과실 중량의 비율은 관행에 비해 질소관비처리구들에서 $2.6{\sim}5.3%$ 증가하였고, 과실중 질소분배량은 $3.7{\sim}21.7%$ 가량 증가하여 질소 관행처리에 비해 질소 관비처리구에서 과실로의 질소분배 및 동화산물 전이가 효과적으로 진행되는 것으로 판단되었다. 한편 질소 관비량 증가로 인한 질소흡수량은 증가하였으나, 질소 흡수율은 감소하는 경향이었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 질소관비처리구의 질소흡수율은 $71.8{\sim}102.3%$ 범위로서 질소관행 처리구의 45%와 비교할 때 현저하게 높았다. 반면에 질소관비처리구의 물이용효율성은 $327{\sim}361kg/ha\;cm^{-1}$로서 관행 질소 처리구의 $324kg/ha\;cm^{-1}$보다 높았으며, NF80 처리구의 경우 $361kg/ha\;cm^{-1}$으로 가장 효율적으로 물을 이용한 것으로 나타났다. 결과적으로 과실의 상품수량, 상품율, 물 이용효율성 등을 고려할 때, 토양검정시비량의 80%에 해당하는 질소량을 관비시 토마토의 생육 및 수량 증가에 가장 효과적인 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Oark, G.A., Stanley, C.D. Maynard, D.N, Hochmuth, G.J, Hanlon, E.A. and Hman, D.Z. (1991) Water and fertilizer management of micro-irrigated fresh market tomatoes, Trans. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. 34: 429-435 https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.31680
  2. Hochmuth, G.J. (1994) Current status of drip irrigation for vegetables in the southeastern and midAtlantic United States, HortTechnol. 4:390-393
  3. Locascio, S. J. (1989) Water quantity and time of N and K application for trickle-irrigated tomatoes, J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114:265-268
  4. Persaud, N., Locascio, S.J. and Geraldson, C.M. (1976) Influence of fertilizer rate and placement and irrigation method on plant nutrition status, soil soluble salt and root distribution of mulched tomatoes, Soil crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 36:121-125
  5. Bhella, H.S. (1988) Tomato response to trickle irrigation and black polyethylene mulch, J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113:543-546
  6. Giardini, L., Giovanardi, R. and Borin, M. (1988) Soil moisture influence on the productivity of industry tomato grown in lysimeters, Acta Hortic. 228:147-154
  7. Rubino, P and Tarantino, E. (1988) Influence of irrigation techniques on the behaviour of some processing tomato cultivars, Acta Hortic. 228:109-118
  8. Sanders, D.C., Howell, T.A., Bile, M.M.S., Hodges, L., Meek, D. and Phene, C.J. (1989) Yield and quality of processing tomatoes in response to irrigation rate and schedule, J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114: 904-908
  9. Tan, C.S. and Dhanvantari, B.N. (1985) Effects on irrigation and plant population on yield, fruit speck and blossom-end rot of processing tomatoes, Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:1011-1018 https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps85-129
  10. Williams, J.W. and Sistrunk, W.A. (1979) Effects of cultivar, irrigation, ethephon, and harvest date on the yield of processing tomatoes, J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104:435-439
  11. Hartz K. and Hochmuth, G.J. (1996) Fertility management of drip irrigated vegetables, HortTechnol. 6:168-172
  12. Raun, W.R. and Johnson, G.V. (1999) Review and interpretation: improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production, Agron. J. 91:357-362 https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1999.00021962009100030001x
  13. Miller, R.J., Rolstan, D.E., Rauschkolb, R.S. and Walfe, D.W. (1976) Drip irrigation of nitrogen is efficient, Calif. Agric. 30:16-18
  14. Locascio, S.J. and Smajstrala, A.G. (1995) Fertilizer timing and pan evaporation scheduling for drip irrigation method, In: Proceeding of the Fifth International Micro Irrigation Congress on Micro Irrigation for a Changing World. Conserving Resources/ Preserving the Environment held at Hyatt Regency Orlando, Orlando, Florida, April 2-6, pp.175-180
  15. Cook, W.P. and Sanders, D.C. (1991) Nitrogen application frequency for drip-irrigated tomatoes, HortSci. 26:250-252
  16. 농촌진흥청 농업과학기술원, (1999) 작물별 시비처방 기준, 상록사, p.152
  17. Crasswell, E.T. and Godwin, D.C. (1984) The efficiency of nitrogen fertilizers applied to cereals in different climate, Adv. Plant Nutr. 1:1-55
  18. Singandhupe, R.B., Rao, G.G.S.N., Patil, N.G. and Brahmanand, P.S. (2003) Fertigation studies and irrigation scheduling in drip irrigation system in tomato crop, Europ. J Agron. 19:327.340 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00077-1
  19. Peech, M. (1965) Hydrogen ion activity, p. 914-926. In: C. A. Black, D. D. Evans, L. E. Ensminger, J. L. White, F. E. Clark and R. C. Dinauer(eds.) Methods of soil analysis: Parts 2. Chemical and microbiological properties, No. 9 in the series of Agronomy, Am. Soc. of Agron, Inc. Publisher
  20. Bower, C. A. and Wilcox, L. V. (1965) Soluble salts, p. 933-951. In: C. A. Black, D. D. Evans, L. E. Ensminger, J. L. White, F. E. Clark and R. C. Dinauer(eds.) Methods of soil analysis: Parts 2. Chemical and microbiological properties, No. 9 in the series of Agronomy, Am. Soc. of Agron, Inc. Publisher
  21. Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E. (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter, p. 539-579. In: A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R Keeney(eds.) Methods of soil analysis: Parts 2. Chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd, No. 9 in the series of Agronomy, Am. Soc. of Agron, Inc., Soil Sci. Soc. of America, Inc. Publisher
  22. Day, P. R. (1965) Particle fractionation and particle size analysis, p. 547-567. In: C. A. Black, D. D. Evans, L. E. Ensminger, J. L. White, F. E. Clark and R. C. Dinauer(eds.) Methods of soil analysis: Parts 1. Physical properties, No.9 in the series of Agronomy, Am. Soc. of Agron, Inc. Publisher
  23. Bray, R H and Kurtz, L. T. (1945) Determination of total, organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils, Soil Sci. 59:39-45 https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-194501000-00006
  24. Thomas, G. W. (1982) Exchangeable cations, p. 159165. In: A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R Keeney (eds.) Methods of soil analysis: Parts 2. Chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd, No. 9 in the series of Agronomy, Am. Soc. of Agron, Inc., Soil Sci. Soc. of America, Inc. Publisher
  25. Bremner, J. M. (1965) Total nitrogen, p. 1149-1178. In: C. A. Black, D. D. Evans, L. E. Ensminger, J. L. White, F. E. Clark and R. C. Dinauer(eds.) Methods of soil analysis: Parts 2. Chemical and microbiological properties, No. 9 in the series of Agronomy, Am. Soc. of Agron, Inc. Publisher
  26. Masson, J., Tremblay, N. and Gosselin, A. (1991) Nitrogen fertilization and HPS supplemental lighting influence vegetable transplant production. I. Transplant growth, J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 116:594-598
  27. Melton, R.R. and Dufault, R.J. (1991) Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertility regimes affect tomato transplant growth, HortSci. 26:141-142
  28. Widders, I.E. (1989) Pretransplant treatments of N and P influence growth and elemental accumulation in tomato seedlings, J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114:416-420
  29. Marry C., Halbrooks, A. and Wilcox, G.E. (1980) Tomato plant development and elemental accumulation, J. Amer, Soc. Hort. Sci. 105:826-828
  30. Tei, F., Benincasa, P. and Guiducci, M. (2002) Critical nitrogen concentration in processing tomato, Europ. J. Agron. 18:45-55 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00096-5
  31. Vavrina, C.S., Hochmuth, G.J., Cornell, J.A. and Olson, S.M. (1998) Nitrogen fertilization of Floridagrown tomato transplants: Seasonal variation in greenhouse and field performance, HortSci. 33:251-254
  32. Weston, L.A. and Zandstra, B.B. (1989)Transplant age and N and P nutrition effects on growth and yield of tomatoes, HortSci. 24:88-90
  33. Garton, R.W. and Widders, I.E. (1990) Nitrogen and phosphorus preconditioning of small-plug seedlings influence processing tomato productivity, HortSci. 25:655-657
  34. Liptay, A. and Nicholls, S. (1993) Nitrogen supply during greenhouse transplant production affects subsequent tomato root growth in the field, J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 118:339-342

Cited by

  1. Optimal Levels of Additional N Fertigation for Greenhouse Watermelon Based on Cropping Pattern and Growth Stage vol.49, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2016.49.6.699
  2. Effects of reduced additional fertilizer on tomato yield and nutrient contents in salt accumulated soil vol.42, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7744/cnujas.2015.42.4.423
  3. Effects of Fertigation with Pig Slurry on Growth and Yield of Red pepper vol.29, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.5338/KJEA.2010.29.3.227
  4. Comparison of Growth, Yield and Yield Components among Rice Cultivars for Organic Farming in No-tillage Paddy vol.29, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.5338/KJEA.2010.29.1.001
  5. Effect of Nitrogen Fertigation by Soil Testing on the Growth and Yield of 'Campbell Early'(Vitis labrusca L.) Grapevine in Field Cultivation vol.29, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.5338/KJEA.2010.29.1.012
  6. Estimation of growth stage-based nitrogen supply levels for greenhouse semi-forcing zucchini cultivation vol.42, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7744/cnujas.2015.42.4.319
  7. Changes of Tomato Growth and Soil Chemical Properties as Affected by Soil pH and Nitrogen Fertilizers vol.29, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.5338/KJEA.2010.29.4.328
  8. Effect of Pig Slurry Fertigation on Soil Chemical Properties and Growth and Development of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) vol.44, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.2.194
  9. Effect of Slurry Composting and Bio-filtration (SCB) by Fertigation on Soil Chemical Properties and Growth of Red Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) vol.48, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2015.48.5.404
  10. Growth Response of Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) Using Balanced Manure Nutrients Supply by Fertigation Culture vol.26, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.11625/KJOA.2018.26.2.269